Clintonian Contradictions

Just days ago, Senator Clinton won the debate among Democratic presidential contenders by announcing that, if America were hit by another terrorist attack, she would quickly respond militarily. She didn't say anything about asking Congress for permission. Yesterday, Mrs. Clinton contradicted herself, joining Senator Byrd to announce she will introduce legislation that she claims would "sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq." The legislation will propose October 11, 2007, the five-year anniversary of the passage of the war resolution, as its expiration.

This is Senator Clinton at her worst. It is political posturing without substance. President Bush would surely veto the legislation, and Congress is unlikely to override it, so it will have no effect. And even if Congress attempted to enforce it, it is unlikely that it could. Mr. Bush would have a strong argument if he were to argue in court that he has the authority to use force in Iraq under both the Constitution and the post-September 11 resolution passed by Congress, as well as, perhaps, under the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. A federal court would be unlikely to referee this fray, and, if it attempted to do so, Mr. Bush would be out of office by the time a court managed to rule definitively on it and the matter worked its way through the appellate process.

What's more, Mrs. Clinton's approach is dangerous. What are our troops supposed to do between now and October 11, knowing of the threat that Congress is attempting to undo everything they accomplish in Iraq between now and then? It doesn't exactly create an incentive to make a success of things. An arbitrary five-year limit on the length of American wars means that America would have just given up in the Cold War, which lasted generations, and in the American Revolution itself, which stretched over eight years. It amounts to announcing to our enemies in Iraq the date of our retreat.

Mrs. Clinton's approach would hamstring her own power should she ever be elected president. It would put her at the mercy of a Congress that could be controlled by an opposing party. If she doesn't want to take our word for it, she could ask her husband or his state secretary, Madeleine Albright. Mr. Byrd tried the same stunt on them when President Clinton used American military force in the Balkans. Ms. Albright responded by telling Senator Byrd, "This is playing with fire. In the Balkans, signs of impatience can be misinterpreted as symptoms of weakness. We cannot afford that in a region where weakness attracts vultures."

Ms. Albright went on, "We will not achieve our goals in Southeast Europe if our eyes are always on the clock and our focus is solely on what others do. We are more than bookkeepers and spectators. We are leaders, and our fundamental objective in Southeast Europe is not to leave. It's to win." The same reasoning applies to Iraq. Mrs. Clinton sounded presidential the other night in the debate, but if she keeps collaborating with Senator Byrd on ways to weaken the war powers of a president, she may end up like him, serving out a long career in the Senate into old age.